I really mean this. It is not a joke, but an observation of this species.

When two rational people meet, they may swiftly recognise a brother or sister.

When two irrational people meet they can only ever be, at best, close strangers, even when they seem to agree, as each lives at the behest of their particular irrationalities, and each irrationality must, by definition, be wholly individual and subjective.

When two rational people meet, no matter what diverse culture or genetic inheritance shapes their world view, they can effectively communicate.They can discuss anything. They can create consensus, make agreements, describe their separate realities until a shared perspective can be reached.

Irrationality on the other hand condemns the irrational to relentless alienation and separation from observable reality and the closest they come to consensus is when they ally themselves with other irrationals who profess to follow the same irrationality.Observation appears to indicate that even this mob mentality is more of the flock swept away en-masse by the river than of the flock working in harness.No two religious beliefs are the same even within the same church.

Why? Because the whole structure is built on irrationality. (I am using religious belief as only one example of the glory of the irrational life.)

Anf the obvious codicil to the OP is that irrational people are not necessarily irrational all the time.

Likewise, rational people are as prone to being subject to irrational impulses (anger is an energy etc) but have a superior skill-set with which to deny irrationality full sway (or long term effect)

So yes, I'm sure some irrational people know they are being irrational. Knowing you are being irrational certainly doesn't mean that you will not continue with the irrationality. I am convinced that much irrationality is by choice.

Years ago I heard a radio show discuss recent(then) studies which indicated that virtually everyone who had committed violence admitted that they were in control right up until the point they made a decision to lose their temper.IOW they chose to indulge their "feelings" and acted irrationally. They allowed themselves....

Others may not have any clue as to how distorted their apparent interface with the real world is, and so might never come to understand their "insanity".

What do you think?

If you were to choose a family which would you choose?

I've said before that teaching rationality should be a core subject at all schools from day one. It should be adopted by governments to fund overwhelming education drives aimed specifically to eradicate the random evolved toss up of whether any particular individual is, or is not, prone to the whole of life effect of emotional bad decision making.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2013, 07:32:05 AM by kin hell »

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

Humans are fundamentally irrational creatures. The divide you speak of is not due to genetics or 'race', at least in my opinion. It's due to knowledge and experience. Rationality is learned and acquired. I suppose it might be like a skill.

Now, it may be true that some people are less capable of rationality than others. But that isn't a racial divide. It's no different than some people being fundamentally better at math, or reading, or whatever.

By the way, not everyone "makes a decision" to be irrational. Indeed, I think it's far less likely than that radio show suggested. I know that I've never made a 'decision' to lose my temper, for example. I think it's describing the after-the-fact rationalization process that people undergo to explain why they do things. For example, I recently lost my temper (the circumstances aren't very important), and without thinking at all clearly, I decided to leave and go back home. Once I had calmed down (at home), I realized that it was getting that distance that allowed me to calm down - I would have stayed angry if I had stayed there. But I didn't decide to leave to get that distance, I decided to leave because I was pissed off and fed up with the situation. It wasn't just me quietly leaving - I announced it and made a small production out of it, as a way to further express my anger. A petty, irrational decision, in other words.

But after I had calmed down and was sending text messages to explain, I put it as "I realized I needed space and time to avoid getting further upset". Which may have been true, but it certainly wasn't something I consciously or rationally decided at the time (and yes, I have trained myself to manage my temper - this was the first time in a while that I'd lost it). Frankly, I doubt most people have the presence of mind when caught in the sway of powerful emotions to make rational decisions - and the ones that do learned how to do it, either accidentally or by example.

In the same way as an alcoholic is someone that drinks more than you do, and irrational person is someone whose ideas are crazier than yours.

In the Great Bell Curve of Normal DistributionWiki, much depends on where you are on the curve as to what you think of others. It's a matter of perspective.

What is disturbing is that people will eagerly follow conspiracy theorists, lunatics, weirdos, etc. I don't know why this might be. What is it in someone who (i) listens to the infamous Harold Camping (who is clearly mentally ill) and then sells off everything in anticipation of the end of the world? (ii) Drinks the Koolaid? (iii) thinks the CIA organised 9/11? (iv) is Roman Catholic? (v) believes crystals will cure baldness? (vi) pays money to aromatherapists? (vii) etc.

Now, if everyone where like me...

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

not everyone "makes a decision" to be irrational. Indeed, I think it's far less likely than that radio show suggested. I know that I've never made a 'decision' to lose my temper, for example.

I'm not sure that it even makes sense - "I made a rational decision to be irrational"? If you decide to make an irrational decision, wouldn't that just mean rationally working out the best response, and then rationally choosing the alternative?

Emotional responses, sure - I can see them overriding the rational, at least short term. I know that its very rare that household objects decide to be truculent just to p---- me off, but that doesn't prevent the moment of irrational fury with them.

But generally, I think I do agree with Kin (from what I said in the first para here). If you are sitting down and thinking something through, I think you MUST know that you are being irrational. Though I guess that the mind can always come up with excuses to justify decisions, so maybe not. I don't know.

Well, that's what I'm kind of getting at. Most people don't have the luxury of sitting down and thinking something through until after it's already happened. When they do reflect on things, after the fact, they're trying to impose a rational framework on decisions that were made for irrational reasons (which is why it's called rationalization, I'm sure).

I watched 97 seconds of Duck Dynasty recently and rationally decided they were all nuts (irrational, if you will) and I had better things to do - like take a nap.

I agree rationality or logic should be taught in schools as a required course, however, good luck with that since you'd soon hear from the fundie crowd the schools were advocating atheism or some such nonsense.

Even in the work world, I see people make decisions based on no more rationality than what is expedient or least painful to them with no consideration of the impact on the people or the organization.

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

Humans are fundamentally irrational creatures. The divide you speak of is not due to genetics or 'race', at least in my opinion.

I agree completely.

It was a metaphor. It was never meant to be read as a scientific, accurate divide.

The "two races" comment allowed me to simplistically divide the human race into the two most radically different groups possible (outside of dead or alive). Those who are predominately rational and those who tend the other way.

Quote

By the way, not everyone "makes a decision" to be irrational. Indeed, I think it's far less likely than that radio show suggested. I know that I've never made a 'decision' to lose my temper, for example. I think it's describing the after-the-fact rationalization process that people undergo to explain why they do things. For example, I recently lost my temper (the circumstances aren't very important), and without thinking at all clearly, I decided to leave and go back home.

So you had no parallel process happening? No internal dialogue witnessing yourself becoming angry? I ask in all sincerity, as I have never not had that self awareness, and so that state is not known to me so I cannot address it with knowledge. The key point of the radio discussion IIRC was not so much about people being or becoming upset about something, but the moment of "allowance" they gave themselves to act violently.

Quote

Once I had calmed down (at home), I realized that it was getting that distance that allowed me to calm down - I would have stayed angry if I had stayed there. But I didn't decide to leave to get that distance, I decided to leave because I was pissed off and fed up with the situation. It wasn't just me quietly leaving - I announced it and made a small production out of it, as a way to further express my anger. A petty, irrational decision, in other words.

I'm not questioning your motives, nor intending to be combative at all, but it seems that you are actually saying you acted in a certain petty and irrational way ..........with intent. That sounds as though you made a decision ................................................to act in a petty and irrational way ...with intent.Again, that is not a slur, I am more than capable of being hoist on my own retard(sic) and acting out, but I am also simultaneously running the internal editor which is well aware of the irrationality of the act. I don't feel out of control, I've just indulged the lesser me.

Re the OP ....what seems to be significant is the fact that you've trained yourself towards a rational approach (ie curbing your temper) so you definitely fall in the rational camp. Each and everyone of us fail at times to live up to the ideal we seek of ourselves, so I really don't see your uncharacteristic outburst as representing the predominantly irrational team.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

So you had no parallel process happening? No internal dialogue witnessing yourself becoming angry?I ask in all sincerity, as I have never not had that self awareness, and so that state is not known to me so I cannot address it with knowledge. The key point of the radio discussion IIRC was not so much about people being or becoming upset about something, but the moment of "allowance" they gave themselves to act violently.

I don't 'allow' myself to become violent when I get angry. I've spent a long time establishing habits of restraint specifically against that possibility, because my temper is very powerful when it gets going. The best way I can describe it is like being in a powerful current. As I've gotten older and more disciplined, I've gotten better at holding up to it when it happens, but it's still possible for me to lose my grip and get swept along with it. Thus I need that habit of restraint in place.

Quote from: kin hell

I'm not questioning your motives, nor intending to be combative at all, but it seems that you are actually saying you acted in a certain petty and irrational way ..........with intent. That sounds as though you made a decision ................................................to act in a petty and irrational way ...with intent.Again, that is not a slur, I am more than capable of being hoist on my own retard(sic) and acting out, but I am also simultaneously running the internal editor which is well aware of the irrationality of the act. I don't feel out of control, I've just indulged the lesser me.

That's just my attempt to reconstruct how I felt at the time. Hindsight and rationalization. I wasn't thinking at all clearly at the time, my temper flared up too quickly for that. I don't actually know if it was pettiness that caused my action, or if it was trying to keep from losing my temper the rest of the way, or if it was some combination thereof.

Quote from: kin hell

Re the OP ....what seems to be significant is the fact that you've trained yourself towards a rational approach (ie curbing your temper) so you definitely fall in the rational camp. Each and everyone of us fail at times to live up to the ideal we seek of ourselves, so I really don't see your uncharacteristic outburst as representing the predominantly irrational team.

I've trained myself to restrain my temper and violent impulses because I have experience of what it's like to not have those restraints in place (that is to say, inflicting damage on people and things because I got too angry at them). Sure, I might be predominantly rational now, but I assuredly was not when I was young.

What about deconverts? Were they simply hidden members of the rational "race" temporarily trapped by early experiences?Or can people operating in the irrational world finally figure it out given the right arguments?Can human beings become awakened to rationality?

Even more interesting: Are the traits of rationality and irrationality genetically inherited (when one can remove extra-genetic inheritance)? If inborn, can the traits be environmentally suppressed?

My old Mum is hopelessly irrational and falling deeper into lala woowoo as her years advance.My old Dad gives it lip service but I can tell he knows it's all crap.My sister hasn't addressed the issue - her life has been too busy and difficult.I fell solidly for Catholicism as a child even though I was niggled by the irrational inconsistencies for about a decade before I decided to shut the whole topic out of my mind - but then returned to it two decades later with an almost unquenchable thirst for rationality.

Is rationality a genetic trait? I don't think religion has been around long enough for it to be responsible for any possible genetic differences between rational and irrational people, but it certainly makes a good shepherd for such a divide. Perhaps the irrational are our living ancestors? And we are the brave new superior race of glorious... ehem It is plausible that this is the case and pockets of the world population are springing out convergently evolved rational human beings, but I think it's more likely that the rise of scepticism is the result of greater communication and education.

I don't think religion has been around long enough for it to be responsible for any possible genetic differences between rational and irrational people, but it certainly makes a good shepherd for such a divide.

but I think it's more likely that the rise of scepticism is the result of greater communication and education.

yes, and all glorious kudos to the earliest rational thinkers. Surrounded by lack of knowledge and a world defined only by superstitious guess work, these giants developed rationality from first principles. Absolutely awesome self possession and determination.

jaimehlers

what you describe is the pinnacle of rationality.It is easy for someone who never experiences such tumultuous passion to never lose their temper.That you exercise restraint in the midst of such maelstrom only indicates perfectly upon which side of the divide you fall.

Well done mate (and I mean that wholeheartedly)

« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 09:22:01 PM by kin hell »

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

There's no such thing as rational or irrational people. Only people who sometimes act rational and sometimes act irrational.

... and so when you meet someone being irrational, you are sharing time/space with an irrational person.

when you meet someone acting rationally you have met a rational being.

I prefer to think of it as meeting a person who is currently acting irrational or rational, for the same reason I prefer to think "people who are currently lying".

Quote

Razel I think if you read the thread you'll note the acceptance of the idea that rationality is a not a fixed quality, but an added tool or filter by which one chooses to interact with the world.

I think it is safe to generalise that a person who acts rationally more often than not can be called rational.

In most cases, I'd rather know what situation or context that a person acts rationally or irrationally rather than how often. It may seem like a small semantics issue, but then I see comments like "You're a liar because you'd lie to save a family from Nazis. How can I trust anything you say?"

... and so when you meet someone being irrational, you are sharing time/space with an irrational person.

when you meet someone acting rationally you have met a rational being.

I prefer to think of it as meeting a person who is currently acting irrational or rational, for the same reason I prefer to think "people who are currently lying".

To a point. But I don't believe it is the case that people randomly switch from one to the other. As you say, there will at least be certain circumstances/topics where the person tends to be consistently one or the other, and I strongly suspect that most people have a general bias towards one or the other.